On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:10:28 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

You will note that my calculation for the 5+j0 case is less than the
Matched Line Loss, not higher.

Hi Owen,

I already anticipated that, didn't I? Certainly parsing my last
discussion is hardly necessary.

I note you have no solution that answers for the loss in a fairly
typical instance for a fairly typical line condition. It couldn't
have been any more difficult than your former computations, could it?
(In fact it is, but not conceptually.) And yet the absence of that
effort is notable (OK, so you've been ambushed). I may have stumbled
on a novelty application but I didn't trip over a boulder of a common
usage.

Given this sub-thread flowed from my response that a source does
dissipate a reverse power flow (both of which, the direction and
dissipation, are held in contention); and further given my "perverse"
challenge fully specifies such a condition and has a real solution, it
stands to reason that if your general computation is in fact general,
then it can resolve the contention to one or both of our satisfaction.
All it requires is that your math treatment accepts both directions of
power flow, and loss in the source. This is not unreasonable,
especially when any number of references encompass just such concepts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC